Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 5.1) to Amagansett NWR
Prepared For: Dr. Brian Czech, Conservation Biologist
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge System
Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning
Conservation Biology Program
4401 N. Fairfax Drive - MS 670
Arlington, VA 22203
June 24, 2009
Jonathan S. Clough & Evan C. Larson, Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 253, Warren VT, 05674
(802)-496-3476
Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 5.1) to Amagansett NWR
Introduction 1
Model Summary 1
Sea Level Rise Scenarios 2
Methods and Data Sources 3
Results 7
Discussion 12
References 13
Appendix A: Contextual Results 15
Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 5.0) to Amagansett NWR
Introduction
Tidal marshes are among the most susceptible ecosystems to climate change, especially accelerated sea level rise (SLR). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) suggested that global sea level will increase by approximately 30 cm to 100 cm by 2100 (IPCC 2001). Rahmstorf (2007) suggests that this range may be too conservative and that the feasible range by 2100 could be 50 to 140 cm. Pfeffer et al. (2008) suggests that 200 cm by 2100 is at the upper end of plausible scenarios due to physical limitations on glaciological conditions. Rising sea level may result in tidal marsh submergence (Moorhead and Brinson 1995) and habitat migration as salt marshes transgress landward and replace tidal freshwater and Irregularly Flooded marsh (Park et al. 1991).
In an effort to address the potential effects of sea level rise on United States national wildlife refuges, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracted the application of the SLAMM model for most Region 4 refuges. This analysis is designed to assist in the production of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) for each refuge along with other long-term management plans.
Model Summary
Within SLAMM, there are five primary processes that affect wetland fate under different scenarios of sea level rise:
· Inundation: The rise of water levels and the salt boundary are tracked by reducing elevations of each cell as sea levels rise, thus keeping mean tide level (MTL) constant at zero. The effects on each cell are calculated based on the minimum elevation and slope of that cell.
· Erosion: Erosion is triggered based on a threshold of maximum fetch and the proximity of the marsh to estuarine water or open ocean. When these conditions are met, horizontal erosion occurs at a rate based on site- specific parameters.
· Overwash: Barrier islands of under 500 meters width are assumed to undergo overwash during each 25-year time-step due to storms. Beach migration and transport of sediments are calculated.
· Saturation: Coastal swamps and fresh marshes can migrate onto adjacent uplands as a response of the water table to rising sea level close to the coast.
· Salinity: In a defined estuary, the effects of salinity progression up an estuary and the resultant effects on marsh type may be tracked. This optional sub-model assumes an estuarine salt-wedge and calculates the influence of the freshwater head vs. the saltwater head in a particular cell. The “classic” estuary geometry is not present in Jefferson County, TX, so this model was not used in this analysis.
For a thorough accounting of each of these processes and the underlying assumptions and equations see the SLAMM 5.0 technical documentation (Clough and Park, 2008).
Sea Level Rise Scenarios
SLAMM 5 was run using scenario A1B from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) – mean and maximum estimates. The A1 scenario assumes that the future world includes very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. In particular, the A1B scenario assumes that energy sources will be balanced across all sources. Under the A1B scenario, the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report (IPC, 2007) suggests a likely range of 0.21 to 0.48 meters of sea level rise by 2090-2099 “excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow.” The A1B-mean scenario that was run as a part of this project falls near the middle of this estimated range, predicting 0.40 meters of global sea level rise by 2100.
The latest literature (Chen et al., 2006, Monaghan et al., 2006) indicates that the eustatic rise in sea levels is progressing more rapidly than was previously assumed, perhaps due to the dynamic changes in ice flow omitted within the IPCC report’s calculations. A recent paper in the journal Science (Rahmstorf, 2007) suggests that, taking into account possible model error, a feasible range by 2100 might be 50 to 140 cm. Pfeffer et al. (2008) suggests that 2 meters by 2100 is at the upper end of plausible scenarios due to physical limitations on glaciological conditions. A recent US intergovernmental report states "Although no ice-sheet model is currently capable of capturing the glacier speedups in Antarctica or Greenland that have been observed over the last decade, including these processes in models will very likely show that IPCC AR4 projected sea level rises for the end of the 21st century are too low." (US Climate Change Science Program, 2008) A recent paper by Grinsted et. al. (2009) states that “sea level 2090-2099 is projected to be 0.9 to 1.3 m for the A1B scenario, with low probability of the rise being within Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confidence limits.”
To allow for flexibility when interpreting the results in this report, SLAMM was also run assuming 1 meter and 1½ meters of eustatic sea level rise by the year 2100. The A1B- maximum scenario was scaled up to produce these bounding scenarios (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Summary of SLR Scenarios Utilized
For simplicity sake, this application report will focus on the A1B-Mean, A1B-Max, and 1½-meter scenarios but a complete set of model results are available for all four scenarios discussed above.
Additional information on the development of the SLAMM model is available in the technical documentation, which may be downloaded from the SLAMM website (Clough and Park, 2008).
Methods and Data Sources
A set of coastal LiDAR data was found for Amagansett NWR, encompassing the entire refuge; the LiDAR was derived from a 2005 flight date (Figure 2).
(Contextual results presented at the end of this report use a combination of the LiDAR and National Elevation Data derived from 10 foot contours.)
Figure 2: LiDAR elevation data (in Black) Over Refuge Boundary (in Red).
The National Wetlands Inventory for Amagansett is based on a photo date of 2004 (Figure 3). Converting the NWI survey into 30 meter cells indicates that the approximately forty acre refuge (approved acquisition boundary including water) is composed of the categories as shown below:
Ocean Beach / 16.0%
Open Ocean / 7.7%
Developed Dry Land / 5.0%
Inland Fresh Marsh / 5.0%
Swamp / 1.7%
There are no diked or impounded wetlands in the region of the Amagansett NWR according to the National Wetlands Inventory.
Figure 3: Amagansett Refuge topographic map.
The historic trend for sea level rise was estimated at 2.78 mm/year (based on NOAA gage 8510560, Montauk, NY). The rate of sea level rise for this refuge may be considered slightly higher than the global average for the last 100 years (approximately 1.5-2.0 mm/year).
The tidal range for the Amagansett NWR is estimated at 0.885 meters (Figure 4) using tidal data from the closest gage (8512769, Shinnecock Yacht Club, Penniman Creek, NY) which is approximately 34 kilometers away.
Figure 4: NOAA Gages Relevant to the Study Area (in rectangle).
There are no salt marshes or irregularly flooded marshes located within this refuge or the area immediately surrounding it making those accretion rate parameters irrelevant for this analysis.
The MTL to NAVD correction was derived using the NOAA VDATUM product. Multiple geographic points were input into VDATUM to produce several corrections in the study area. The resulting values were within 1 mm of each other (from -0.0962 to -0.0964 meters). The resulting correction value is an average of these values.
Modeled U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge boundaries for New York are based on Approved Acquisition Boundaries as published on the FWS National Wildlife Refuge Data and Metadata website. Review of the Long Island Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) confirmed the range of these boundaries.
The cell-size used for this analysis was 30 meter by 30 meter cells. However, the SLAMM model does track partial conversion of cells based on elevation and slope.
SUMMARY OF SLAMM INPUT PARAMETERS FOR AMAGANSETT NWR
Description / , / Amagansett Bay / Amagansett Bay LiDARDEM Source Date (yyyy) / , / 1956 / 2005
NWI_photo_date (yyyy) / , / 2004 / 2004
Direction_OffShore (N|S|E|W) / , / S / S
Historic_trend (mm/yr) / , / 2.78 / 2.78
NAVD88_correction (MTL-NAVD88 in meters) / , / -0.0963 / -0.0963
Water Depth (m below MLW- N/A) / , / 2 / 2
TideRangeOcean (meters: MHHW-MLLW) / , / 0.885 / 0.885
TideRangeInland (meters) / , / 0.885 / 0.885
Mean High Water Spring (m above MTL) / , / 0.73455 / 0.73455
MHSW Inland (m above MTL) / , / 0.73455 / 0.73455
Marsh Erosion (horz meters/year) / , / 1.8 / 1.8
Swamp Erosion (horz meters/year) / , / 1 / 1
TFlat Erosion (horz meters/year) [from 0.5] / , / 0.5 / 0.5
Salt marsh vertical accretion (mm/yr) Final / , / 3.05 / 3.05
Brackish March vert. accretion (mm/yr) Final / , / 3.05 / 3.05
Tidal Fresh vertical accretion (mm/yr) Final / , / 5.9 / 5.9
Beach/T.Flat Sedimentation Rate (mm/yr) / , / 0.5 / 0.5
Frequency of Large Storms (yr/washover) / , / 35 / 35
Use Elevation Preprocessor for Wetlands / , / TRUE / FALSE
Results
Amagansett NWR is predicted to be somewhat susceptible to more extreme sea level rise scenarios. Ocean beach loss is predicted to be nearly 100% under the one meter scenario but only 40% under the 1.5 meter scenario as dry lands start to convert to beach. Loss of dry land – which constitutes the majority of this NWR – is predicted to be 16% in the most extreme scenario and one percent or less under other scenarios. Loss of inland fresh marsh – which constitutes roughly five percent of this refuge – is predicted to be less than 20% in the most extreme scenario and is negligible in other scenarios.
Eustatic SLR by 2100 (m) / 0.39 / 0.69 / 1 / 1.5Dry Land / 0% / 0% / 1% / 16%
Ocean Beach / 0% / 9% / 96% / 41%
Inland Fresh Marsh / 0% / 0% / 0% / 18%
Predicted Loss Rates of Land Categories by 2100 Given Simulated
Scenarios of Eustatic Sea Level Rise
Maps of SLAMM input and output to follow will use the following legend:
IPCC Scenario A1B-Mean, 0.39 M SLR Eustatic by 2100
Results in Acres
Initial / 2025 / 2050 / 2075 / 2100
Undeveloped Dry Land / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0
Ocean Beach / 6.4 / 6.4 / 6.4 / 6.4 / 6.4
Open Ocean / 3.1 / 3.1 / 3.1 / 3.1 / 3.1
Dev. Dry Land / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0
Inland Fresh Marsh / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0
Swamp / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7
Total (incl. water) / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3
Amagansett NWR, Initial Condition
Amagansett NWR, 2025, Scenario A1B Mean Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWR, 2050, Scenario A1B Mean Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWR, 2075, Scenario A1B Mean Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWR, 2100, Scenario A1B Mean Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWRIPCC Scenario A1B-Max, 0.69 M SLR Eustatic by 2100
Results in Acres
Initial / 2025 / 2050 / 2075 / 2100
Undeveloped Dry Land / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0
Ocean Beach / 6.4 / 6.4 / 6.4 / 6.3 / 5.9
Open Ocean / 3.1 / 3.1 / 3.1 / 3.3 / 3.7
Dev. Dry Land / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0
Inland Fresh Marsh / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0
Swamp / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7
Total (incl. water) / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3
Amagansett NWR, Initial Condition
Amagansett NWR, 2025, Scenario A1B Maximum Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWR, 2050, Scenario A1B Maximum Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWR, 2075, Scenario A1B Maximum Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWR, 2100, Scenario A1B Maximum Protect Developed Dry Land
Amagansett NWR1 Meter Eustatic SLR by 2100
Results in Acres
Initial / 2025 / 2050 / 2075 / 2100
Undeveloped Dry Land / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0 / 26.0 / 25.8
Ocean Beach / 6.4 / 6.4 / 6.4 / 5.6 / 0.3
Open Ocean / 3.1 / 3.1 / 3.1 / 4.0 / 9.6
Dev. Dry Land / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0
Inland Fresh Marsh / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0 / 2.0
Swamp / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7 / 0.7
Total (incl. water) / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3 / 40.3
Amagansett NWR, Initial Condition